|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 359 Records
-
1991 (3) TMI 59 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Advertisement, Business Expenditure, Charitable Purpose, Closely Held Company, Income Tax, Rebate, Special Deduction
-
1991 (3) TMI 58 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ould not apply proprio vigore. In view of the fact that the Tribunal has not expressly held that Anwar Ali s case 1970 76 ITR 696 (SC) holds the field even after the introduction of the Explanation, we think it unnecessary to answer question No. 1. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, while it is true that the approach of the Tribunal is coloured by the ratio of Anwar Ali s case 1970 76 ITR 696 (SC), we find at the same time that, on a full consideration of relevant facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the assessee in this case is not guilty of concealment of his income nor of furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income. In view of this finding which is one of fact and which, in our opinion, is not, in any manner, vitiated by taking into consideration the principles of Anwar Ali s case 1970 76 ITR 696 (SC), we answer question No. 2 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Reference is answered accordingly.
-
1991 (3) TMI 57 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessable Entity Under Wealth Tax, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... conclusion that the club like the one in the present case is an assessable entity under the Wealth-tax Act. However, as fairly conceded by Shri Jetley himself, the Madras High Court has not followed the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Orient Club v. WTO 1980 123 ITR 3959 and the judgments of our court in Orient Club v. CWT 1982 136 ITR 697 and Willingdon Sports Club v. C. B. Patil, Third Addl. WTO 1982 137 ITR 83 which are binding on us. The mere fact that the Madras High Court has taken a different view is no ground for our not following those judgments. Accordingly, we hold that the issue involved in the three questions is covered by the judgments of our court s two judgments in Orient Club v. CWT 1982 136 ITR 697 and Willingdon Sports Club v. C. B. Patil, Third Addl. WTO 1982 137 ITR 83 and answer the questions thus The assessee club is not an assessable entity under the Wealth-tax Act and cannot, therefore, be taxed as such. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 56 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... Tandon ? The Tribunal has merely followed its earlier decision while disposing of the appeal before it. It is brought to our notice that, against the earlier order of the Tribunal, the Revenue had applied for reference under subsection (1) as well as sub-section (2) of section 256, though unsuccessfully. The Department, it appears, is proposing to file an appeal in the Hon ble Supreme Court against the refusal of this Court to call for a reference. This application is filed with a view to keep the matter alive. A Bench of this court has already held in Writ Petitions Nos. 387 and 388 of 1980. K. N. Agrawal v. CIT 1991 189 ITR 769 decided on January 11, 1991, that such a course is not permissible. We cannot, in such a situation, hold that a question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. Since the Tribunal has merely followed its earlier order against which a reference application has already been dismissed, this income-tax application is also, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1991 (3) TMI 55 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 282(2)(c) of the Act. The petitioner was no doubt ill-advised in asking for condonation of delay on those facts but this defect in the prayer should not disentitle him to the relief which he is entitled to in law. We find from the order of the Tribunal that it has not expressed any opinion on the above facts though it has set out the said facts in its order. It has dismissed the application on the only ground that it has no power to condone the delay beyond thirty days of the prescribed period of limitation. In the circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for reconsidering the application filed by the petitioner along with the application under section 256(1) of the Act on merits in the light of the observations herein. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. No costs. Certified copy of this order may be given to learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within one week.
-
1991 (3) TMI 54 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... l was justified and legally correct in holding that the sales tax payable relating to the year under appeal paid in the subsequent year within the statutory time permitted by the relevant Sales Tax Act would qualify for deduction in computing the taxable income for the assessment year 1984-85 without properly appreciating Explanation 2 to section 43B inserted by the Finance Act, 1989, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1984 ? Reference is ordered accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 53 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business, Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... ficial receiver must be taxed as an individual. Following the said decision, question No. 2 is answered saying that the official receiver should be assessed in the status of an individual with respect to the lease rent received by him. The assessment years concerned herein are 1967-68 to 1972-73. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, it is brought to our notice that the lease rent, when it was received by the co-owners, was directed to be assessed under the head Other sources and not under the head Profits and gains of business . Learned standing counsel points out that since the official receiver merely steps into the shoes of the co-owners, his position cannot be different. We agree with him and that is also the view of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we answer question No. 1 to the effect that the lease rent received by the official receiver is assessable under the head Other sources and not under the head Profits and gains of business. Reference ordered accordingly. No costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 52 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... e purpose of development rebate, initial depreciation, depreciation, etc. ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to enlarge the scope of the relief already granted, providing relief regarding development rebate and initial depreciation as well ? An application under section 256(1) of the Act was moved before the Tribunal which rejected it following the decision of this court in CIT v. Bhandari Capacitors P. Ltd. 1987 168 ITR 647. A Division Bench of this court in C WT v. Smt. Usha Devi 1990 183 ITR 75 has held that where the Tribunal has passed an order following the decision of the High Court in another case, the court would be justified in rejecting an application under section 256(2) and pendency of the point before the Supreme Court is no ground for allowing the application. In view of the aforesaid decisions, no referable question survives before us. The application is, therefore, rejected with no order as to costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 51 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Learned counsel for the assessee argued that the reassessment proceedings are bad because reassessment proceedings merely amount to and are based on a change of opinion. He also contended that section 41 has no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. But these are issues relating to the merits of the case, upon which we need not express any opinion at this stage. Indeed, it is not even stated expressly in the writ petition that the said amount was not shown as a trading liability in the account books of the assessee, and yet an argument on merits is sought to be attempted. In the state of material before us, it is not advisable for us to enter upon the merits of the said question or to express any opinion thereon. It is open to the petitioner to raise all such questions of fact and law as are open to him before the Assessing Officer. The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 50 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ths from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it. Similarly, we also direct the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Moradabad Range, Moradabad, to dispose of the application under section 144A of the Act within the same period. For a period of four months or till both the applications are decided, whichever is earlier, the assessment proceedings pending before the Assessing Officer, Ward-I, Moradabad, for the assessment years 1988-89 and 1989-90 shall remain stayed. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Learned counsel for the petitioner has undertaken to serve a copy of this order upon the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Moradabad Range, Moradabad, as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P., Lucknow, within two weeks from today, failing which the directions issued in this order shall stand automatically vacated copy of this order may be given to learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within 24 hours.
-
1991 (3) TMI 49 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Firm, Gift, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... e reconstitution of the firm amounts to a gift or a deemed gift and is taxable under the Gift-tax Act ? The question is covered by the decision of this court in D. C. Shah v. CG T 1982 134 ITR 492. Accordingly, it is held that it is not gift and not taxable. The question is answered against the Revenue. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1991 (3) TMI 48 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Change Of Law, Wealth Tax, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... d when raised, in the manner prescribed by the Wealth-tax Act. The Act provides for reference of questions of law to the High Court, vide section 27. Just because a question of law arises, this court need not interfere at an intermediate stage of assessment proceedings. The said question can also be raised in the assessment proceedings, in appeals and ultimately, it can come to this court by way of a reference, if and when necessary. We may, however, observe that, if the petitioner places before the Assistant Commissioner material disclosing the annual rent assessed by the local authority in respect of the house properties concerned herein, the Assistant Commissioner shall take into consideration the said valuation also and determine the value of the said assets. We see no reason to interfere at this intermediate stage of the assessment proceedings. Let the assessment proceedings go on according to law. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed with the above observations.
-
1991 (3) TMI 47 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction To Impose Penalty, Law Applicable To Penalty Proceedings, Limitation For Penalty Proceedings
-
1991 (3) TMI 46 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Question Of Law, Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... s is a pure finding of fact and there is no reason to refer the said questions. Question No. 4 raises an alternative contention, namely, that even if the value of the said jewellery is to be included in the income under section 69A, whether it should be included in the assessee s income or in his wife s income. This question, we are satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case, is one of law and ought to be referred under section 256(2) of the Act. Accordingly, question No. 4 is referred, but it is reframed in the following terms Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the value of the jewellery in question should be included in the assessee s assessment and not in his wife s assessment when the said jewellery is recovered from the room in the possession of the assessee s wife ? The application is allowed in part. Accordingly, question No. 4 shall be stated under section 256(2) of the Act. No costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 45 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Accrual, Income ... ... ... ... ..... interest-bearing loans did not accrue or arise to the assessee during the accounting year because the suits were pending for the recovery of the loans ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in putting off the date of accrual of interest in spite of the fact that the assessee followed tile mercantile system of accounting and the loans were interest-bearing ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amounts of Rs. 53,807, Rs. 54,228, Rs. 55,138 as interest accrued were not includible in the total income of the assessee in the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73, respectively ? All the relevant facts in this case are identical including the pendency of suits. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, these three questions are also answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The references are answered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 44 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Law Applicable To Assessment, Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... rity. This point was accepted by the Tribunal and the penalty quashed. Thereupon, the present reference was obtained. The question raised herein is concluded in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of this court in CIT v. Om Sons 1979 116 ITR 215. Though the said decision is contrary to the view taken by certain other High Courts in the country, the said decision is binding upon us on the above point. Accordingly, following the same, we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is answered accordingly. No costs. Learned standing counsel for the Revenue makes an oral request for grant of a certificate under section 29(1) of the Wealth-tax Act. Since there is a conflict of opinion amongst the High Courts in the country on this question, we are of the opinion that it deserves to be certified as a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court under section 29(1) of the Act. certificate shall, accordingly, be issued.
-
1991 (3) TMI 43 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... en 1974 96 ITR 634, whereupon the assessee obtained the present reference. It may be noticed that the interest of the father in the partnership firm was his individual property. It was not coparcenary property in his hands. If so, the father s interest devolved upon the assessee under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and not under the main limb of section 6(1). Once this is so, the property would be his separate property as has been held by this court in CWT v. Chander Sen 1974 96 ITR 634 which decision we find has been affirmed in appeal by the Supreme Court in CWT v. Chander Sen 1986 161 ITR 370. For the above reasons, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, we find that it does not really arise from the order of the Tribunal. We have already answered question No. 1. We decline to answer question No. 2. The income-tax reference is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 42 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income, Sugar Industry ... ... ... ... ..... he name of the District Magistrate in the State Bank of India in pursuance of the orders of this court in a writ petition. The writ petition was filed by the assessee questioning the levy price fixed by the Government. It wanted a higher price. The assessee was allowed to collect the higher price but subject to the condition that he should deposit the difference between the price fixed by the Government and the price claimed by him in a suspense account. The question is whether, in such a case, such amount constitutes the income of the assessee for the said assessment year. An identical question has been answered by a Bench of this court in Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1991 188 ITR 787 (AU), in favour of the assessee. There, it was dealt with as question No. 5. The facts are practically identical. Following the said decision, the question referred is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
1991 (3) TMI 41 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 281 of 1985 decided on November 6, 1987), the Division Bench of this court had already answered these very questions holding in favour of the assessee. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, therefore, relying on the aforesaid judgment of the High Court refused to make a reference and dismissed the application under section 256(1) of the Act before it. The applicant has now come in this application under section 256(2) of the Act before us. In CWT v. Usha Devi 1990 183 ITR 75 (M. C. C. Nos. 136 to 145 of 1988 decided on August 1, 1989), a Division Bench of this court has held that where a Tribunal has passed an order following the decision of the High Court in another case, an application under section 256(2) could not be entertained. As the case is fully covered by an earlier judgment which was followed by the Tribunal, no referable question can be said to arise. Relying on the aforesaid two judgments, we dismiss these applications. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (3) TMI 40 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... ers of the two Appellate Tribunals in wealth-tax appeals filed by a connected assessee. Thus, so far as the shares of J. K. Commercial Corporation are concerned, the assessee s valuation is higher than the valuation determined in the wealth-tax appeals aforesaid. In such a situation, the proper course is to accept the valuation of the assessee. So far as the shares of Messrs. J. K. Udyog are concerned, the situation is different, i.e., the valuation determined in the wealth-tax proceedings is higher than the valuation disclosed by the assessee. In such a case, the higher valuation determined in the wealth-tax proceedings shall be adopted according to the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal was, in our opinion, justified in affirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Accordingly the question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, subject to the above clarification. No order as to costs.
....
|
